Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

RobertDyck · 2006-11-05 12:16:28

I don't care, an enemy is an enemy, and the enemy of my enemy can also be my enemy too. One of the main reasons why wars last so long is the liberal tendency to show sympathy for our enemies, that sustains the enemy in the field.

Listen to yourself. Before America was founded, the primary purpose of European military was to "pacify" the public. That mean when the public revolted, when the held demonstrations or declared one town free of a government official that royalty had put in place, the military would go in to slaughter the protesters and regain control. US law holds that no weapon of war can be used against American citizens on American soil. The use of a tank at Waco Texas was direct violation of that law.

Hmm, as I wrote this Tom edited his message, removed the sentence with the word "revolt". The quoted text doesn't have that sentence so my lecture appears not to make sense.

I watched that video on YouTube. It's pretty revolting. However, it quotes movie scenes rather than news interviews with real Arabs. One clip is particularly important, an Arab says "You have killed our women and our children, bombed our cities from afar, like cowards, and you dare to call us terrorists!" That movie then went to depict the speaker as a madman who didn't believe what he said, but the sentence is key to everything. Many Arabs feel this way. Most of them don't believe violence can be solved with volence so won't take up arms, but enough do. Those few who are willing to fight to defend their homes and their people will be recruited by terrorist organizations to fight America. This will go on as along as you attempt to assert your dominance by military actions in their country.

I had said for years that as long as America attempts to use military actions, overt or covert, to enforce its dominance of third world countries, they will fight back. It was only a matter of time before something like 9/11 happened. I horrified it did, but don't act surprised. I'll repeat an analogy I wrote before: A friend leaves valuables in plane sight in his car, leaves the doors unlocked and the windows rolled down, leaves the car unattended for hours then comes back to find it was stolen. What do you say? You don't wish that upon him, the criminal is still guilty of theft and must be punished, but your friend was asking for it. What do you say? This is how I see the attack of 9/11. America has been engaging in military actions in third world countries for years. That whipped up resentment, those countries were bound to attack the US sooner or later. I still think al Qaeda is a criminal organization guilty of mass murder, I still think they should be arrested, tried, and punished for mass murder. America has the death penalty, I have no problem with that as long as a fair trial clearly identifies the accused of being guilty. The reason Canada abandoned the death penalty was not do to some "liberal" right of criminals; it was because too many people were executed then found innocent after the execution. You can free someone mistakenly imprisoned, but you can't un-execute a man. In fact, I specifically want to see a long, drawn-out trial for Osama bin Laden, I want him to have to face the families of those he killed, then I want to see him executed by lethal injection on live television. There's no doubt Osama is guilty, he already confessed on TV, but for anyone else make sure you have the right man. That's what a trial is for. But I come back to what I started in this paragraph, two wrongs to not make a right. The middle east (both Arab and Israeli) have always been a volatile area, prone to fickle alliances that change quickly. The citizens are passionate, violent people, messing with the geopolitics in that region is asking to get bitten.

Imposing by military force an American style government will only result in resentment. Freedom means the people who live there have to decide themselves. If they choose a republican democracy, or a parliamentary democracy, or a constitutional monarchy, or a dictatorship, or communism, or theocracy, it's all their choice. Anyone who lives outside their country has no right to any say in the matter. America invaded Iraq; they hadn't bothered anyone outside their borders since 1991. Between the Gulf wars, America kept poking at Iraq; the American government couldn't accept the fact they won. In Afghanistan the new government is the former warlord from northern Afghanistan. The Afghani people remember the warlords were even worse than Taliban, don't be surprised there isn't much support for the current government. By using military force to support one oppressor against another, you mess with their internal politics. That can only result in local politicians declaring you the common enemy, the foreign oppressor that everyone must unite against. Why serve that role? Why make yourself the designated bad guy?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-06 10:26:56

I don't care, an enemy is an enemy, and the enemy of my enemy can also be my enemy too. One of the main reasons why wars last so long is the liberal tendency to show sympathy for our enemies, that sustains the enemy in the field.
Listen to yourself. Before America was founded, the primary purpose of European military was to "pacify" the public. That mean when the public revolted, when the held demonstrations or declared one town free of a government official that royalty had put in place, the military would go in to slaughter the protesters and regain control. US law holds that no weapon of war can be used against American citizens on American soil. The use of a tank at Waco Texas was direct violation of that law.

So you say, Lincoln was wrong to put down the Confederate Uprising. The Soldiers of the Confederate States of America were also Americans, yet Lincoln used Federal troops to defeat them and thus saved the Union. I believe precident was established during the American Civil War. Are you saying that the US Federal Government no longer has the right to put down internal rebellions with its own military forces?

Hmm, as I wrote this Tom edited his message, removed the sentence with the word "revolt". The quoted text doesn't have that sentence so my lecture appears not to make sense.

"Revolt" is an emotionally charged word, after writing it, I decided not to use it, and I also have a tendency to put too many words in my sentences when fewer words will do and make the point just as well. A revolt can be an expression of the will of the people, or just that of a dissatisfied section, the rebellion in the South was also a revolt, it does not justify slavery though. Since the word "revolt" is emotionally charged and is seen in some eyes as partially justifying the cause behind the revolt, I have decided not to use that word. I'm sure you have revised your sentences to on many occasions.

I watched that video on YouTube. It's pretty revolting. However, it quotes movie scenes rather than news interviews with real Arabs. One clip is particularly important, an Arab says "You have killed our women and our children, bombed our cities from afar, like cowards, and you dare to call us terrorists!"

Yes I dare, they were given a free vote a chance to determine their own government and a chance for peace where the Israeli government would not bomb them from afar and kill their children, and what did they do with that vote? They voted in terrorists, the Hamas organization that calles for the destruction of Israel, and then they kidnapped Israeli soldiers and launched rocket attacks on Israel, killing some innocent Israeli civilians. Since the Palestinians by their own vote, broke the peace, they shall suffer from the resulting war, they were given a chance to live in peace with their neighbors and in their own land, but they rejected it. You cannot seriously expect the Israelis to stop defending themselves when the Palestinian people launch an unprovoked attack on them do you? Do you live in Israel, are you willing to sacrifice your life because you feel sorry for your attackers, then how can you expect that of the Israelis?

That movie then went to depict the speaker as a madman who didn't believe what he said, but the sentence is key to everything. Many Arabs feel this way. Most of them don't believe violence can be solved with volence so won't take up arms, but enough do. Those few who are willing to fight to defend their homes and their people will be recruited by terrorist organizations to fight America. This will go on as along as you attempt to assert your dominance by military actions in their country.

The majority voted for the Hamas terrorist organization, I'd say that includes most of the people. Most of the Palestinians wanted this war, and most of them expected the Israelis not to defend themselves when they attacked, a most foolish expectation, so now they suffer, and maybe next time they'll learn when next peace is offered to them, if the Israelis will allow them another chance.

I had said for years that as long as America attempts to use military actions, overt or covert, to enforce its dominance of third world countries, they will fight back. It was only a matter of time before something like 9/11 happened. I horrified it did, but don't act surprised. I'll repeat an analogy I wrote before: A friend leaves valuables in plane sight in his car, leaves the doors unlocked and the windows rolled down, leaves the car unattended for hours then comes back to find it was stolen. What do you say?

It is wrong to steal, and I'd pass by many valuable possessions without stealing it, just because it was left in plain sight. Also If I see a nearly naked beautiful woman, that does not mean I will rape her just because she was dressed like a prostitute. I follow a code of moral conduct that says stealing is wrong, and I expect my fellow man to adhere to the same code.

You don't wish that upon him, the criminal is still guilty of theft and must be punished, but your friend was asking for it. What do you say? This is how I see the attack of 9/11.

That is a clasic blame the victim argument if I ever read one. The owner may be foolish, but I've heard of many societies where people leave a child unattended for a moment and the child is not kidnapped. If people steal just because their is an opportunity to steal, that does not excuse it, if people murder just because they think they can get away with it, that is not an excuse.

America has been engaging in military actions in third world countries for years. That whipped up resentment, those countries were bound to attack the US sooner or later.

And we were bound to retaliate when they did! They should have expected it, did they not? When they attack us unprovoked their was bound to be a response, they were fools to expect otherwise, and you should not expect otherwise either. I don't care how aggrieved some people think they were, murdering innocent people was not justified, and you do a diservice to their memory when you try to excuse it as an "irresistable" opportunity to attack.

I still think al Qaeda is a criminal organization guilty of mass murder, I still think they should be arrested, tried, and punished for mass murder. America has the death penalty, I have no problem with that as long as a fair trial clearly identifies the accused of being guilty. The reason Canada abandoned the death penalty was not do to some "liberal" right of criminals; it was because too many people were executed then found innocent after the execution. You can free someone mistakenly imprisoned, but you can't un-execute a man. In fact, I specifically want to see a long, drawn-out trial for Osama bin Laden, I want him to have to face the families of those he killed, then I want to see him executed by lethal injection on live television. There's no doubt Osama is guilty, he already confessed on TV, but for anyone else make sure you have the right man. That's what a trial is for. But I come back to what I started in this paragraph, two wrongs to not make a right. The middle east (both Arab and Israeli) have always been a volatile area, prone to fickle alliances that change quickly. The citizens are passionate, violent people, messing with the geopolitics in that region is asking to get bitten.
Imposing by military force an American style government will only result in resentment. Freedom means the people who live there have to decide themselves. If they choose a republican democracy, or a parliamentary democracy, or a constitutional monarchy, or a dictatorship, or communism, or theocracy, it's all their choice.

The right to choose one's government is an inherent right that cannot morally be given away. If one chooses a dictatorship, he is denying future generations the right to vote and it is just as wrong as when a foreign enemy chooses to occupy his country, and it is just as wrong as when the military chooses to seize power by force.

RobertDyck · 2006-11-06 19:32:41

Well, I have to hold out the hope that enough Americans have a brain. People like Tom give Americans a bad name. "Defeating" the "Confederate upraising" with military force is somehow Ok? In a country that claims to be free? Failure to understand an analogy of recklessness exposing yourself to criminal acts? Most importantly, failure to understand why American foreign policy has been provoking retaliation for a very long time. And finally justifying dictating the form of government to another country; the old excuse that "someone" at some vague time in the future might want something else. The implication that Uncle Sam knows best. This is what stirred up trouble in the first place.

I can only hope America votes in a government of "doves" at the mid-term election. Canada went into Afghanistan to support our ally, but Canadian participation in a prolonged occupation is damaging our reputation. We can't afford to stay there much longer. Furthermore, Canada's economy is closely tied to the US, and America's economy is already going down. Look at the value of the US dollar, America's deficit and debt. Canada certainly can't afford to get involved in another conflict, for the sake of our peaceful relations with other nations of the world. American can't afford another war for financial reasons. Canada's economy would be damaged if America goes into a major recession. I could continue to give philosophical reasons for doing the right thing, but since people like Tom don't want to hear them, then please pay attention to practical reasons. Please step back from the brink.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-07 09:24:38

Well, I have to hold out the hope that enough Americans have a brain. People like Tom give Americans a bad name. "Defeating" the "Confederate upraising" with military force is somehow Ok?

In fact Sargent Thomas Kalbfus, the original, participated in that conflict for the State of Pennsyvania to preserve the United States of America. Do you have something against the preservation of the United States?

In a country that claims to be free? Failure to understand an analogy of recklessness exposing yourself to criminal acts? Most importantly, failure to understand why American foreign policy has been provoking retaliation for a very long time.

What was the 9/11 attack retaliation for, specifically?
I don't recall any reason given. Explain that to the victims families why those hijackers had it out for them!
Unlike you I don't automatically assume the attackers had a good reason for murdering so many. What was the latest Israeli occupation of Gaza for?
You automatically assume the terrorists have good reasons for doing what they're doing, why can't you extent to us the same courtesy?

And finally justifying dictating the form of government to another country; the old excuse that "someone" at some vague time in the future might want something else. The implication that Uncle Sam knows best. This is what stirred up trouble in the first place.

People who support a dictatorship are people who want to supress other people's right to vote. It makes no difference if the American people choose a dictatorship for ourselves or if we choose a dictatorship for Canada, to give a hypothetical example. In the latter we are imposing a dictator on someone else, and in the former we are imposing a dictatorship on ourselves and our children for a number of future would be elections. I don't believe I have a right to overthrow the US Constituion and force my children to live under a dictatorship. My right to vote and my children's is not mine to give away. The right of the people to choose their government is inherent, they cannot however be allowed to choose undemocratic forms of government for one time only. If you support the right of people to choose a dictator, then I support the right of the American People to forceably remove that dictator if it causes the American people trouble. I don't see how anybody who gives up his right to vote, has any right to complain about whatever we do to his country in the name of our national security, didn't he just give up any say he wanted to have in choosing his own government? That is what I interpret someone choosing a dictatorship to mean. The Iraqi people have made their choice in choosing a dictatorship, fine, now after their having shosen to give up all say in how their country is run, we've chosen to remove that dictator and give the right to choose their government back to the people.

I can only hope America votes in a government of "doves" at the mid-term election.

By retreating, they'll only ensure that their will be more wars, it was the "doves" that gave Hitler a great head start in World War II, by offering him Austria, and Czechoslavakia.

Canada went into Afghanistan to support our ally, but Canadian participation in a prolonged occupation is damaging our reputation. We can't afford to stay there much longer.

What was the invasion of Afghanistan in retaliation for? If the 9/11 terrorists had good reason then surely so must have we. Let the first move for peace be theirs by their surrendering. Why don't they choose the "Doves" and not us? Why must the West always be the one to make the sacrifice for peace and not the other guy?

Furthermore, Canada's economy is closely tied to the US, and America's economy is already going down.

That's why the unemployment rate is so low.

Look at the value of the US dollar,

The Canadian dollar is worht less.

America's deficit and debt.

The US Deficit is down.

Canada certainly can't afford to get involved in another conflict, for the sake of our peaceful relations with other nations of the world.[/QUOTE]
It hasn't been involved in Iraq anyway, I don't know what the heck your complaining about. Do you want to be neutrals in the War on terrorism? Well then please excuse us as we close the borders with Canada, as we don't want those terrorists your so willing to "glad handle" to come down to the United States.

American can't afford another war for financial reasons.

So if the enemy attacks, we just surrender and convert to Islam to save our pocketbooks?

Canada's economy would be damaged if America goes into a major recession. I could continue to give philosophical reasons for doing the right thing, but since people like Tom don't want to hear them, then please pay attention to practical reasons. Please step back from the brink.

I say to the terrorists to step back from the brink, they are the ones on it. However much we're suffereing, they're suffering that much more. The ultimate aim is deterence, their pain is greater, and their sacrifice is greater. The way we win this war is by making the enemy make the greater sacrifice, and cause them to die on droves until they cease to fight.

Palomar · 2006-11-07 11:29:20

The Canadian dollar is worht less.

:shock: I'm not so certain, Tom. An online friend of mine lives very close to the Canadian border and recently mentioned how our dollar and Canada's are currently very close in value. 1 U.S. dollar used to equal (nearly) 2 Canadian; now (IIRC) 75 U.S. cents is comparable to 1 Canadian dollar...something like that (can't recall specifics).

Our money is quickly becoming "worthless." It worries me.

RobertDyck · 2006-11-07 11:43:02

In 1998 the Canadian dollar dropped to 64 cents US, but September 28 this year it was 90.02 cents. Today it's 88.68 cents; fluctuations.

Source: Bank of Canada, that's the Canadian equivalent to the Federal Reserve. If you chart Canada's dollar to other foreign currencies, the Canadian dollar isn't really rising. Rather, the US dollar and those foreign currencies tied to it are dropping. Canada's dollar relative to the Euro is about the same.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-07 13:05:15

In 1998 the Canadian dollar dropped to 64 cents US, but September 28 this year it was 90.02 cents. Today it's 88.68 cents; fluctuations.
Source: Bank of Canada, that's the Canadian equivalent to the Federal Reserve. If you chart Canada's dollar to other foreign currencies, the Canadian dollar is really rising. Rather, the US dollar and those foreign currencies tied to it are dropping. Canada's dollar relative to the Euro is about the same.

Well, if you equalize the two, we could have monetary union just like in Europe, then we could make those Canadian quarters in my pocket worth something.

We can always revalue the dollar and put Alexander Hamilton's portrait on the One dollar bill. Andrew Jackson can go on the two dollar bill, Ulysses Grant sould be on the five dollar bill and Benjamin Franklin would go on the ten dollar bill, then we could put George Washington on the twenty, Abe Lincoln on the fifty, and Thomas Jefferson on the One hundred dollar bill.

RobertDyck · 2006-11-07 13:33:48

Well, if you equalize the two, we could have monetary union just like in Europe, then we could make those Canadian quarters in my pocket worth something.

Don't even think about it. The Royal Bank suggested it in the late 1990s. Currency is a major icon of national sovereignty. The NAFTA has not resulted in economic union like the EU, we still have major disputes from protectionism. Canada has solved it's federal budgetary deficit, the US hasn't. The US federal government is no where near doing things the Canadian way. Furthermore, the US does not respect Canada enough to abandon the US dollar in favour of a new continental currency. Your suggestions are an illustration; you only listed US historical figures. You did not mention John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier, William Lyon Mackenzie King, or Robert Borden. They're former Prime Ministers, on the $10, $5, $50, and $100 bills respectively. John A. Macdonald was Canada's first, that's why I list him first.

The US has to get it's own house in order.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-08 02:13:09

Well, if you equalize the two, we could have monetary union just like in Europe, then we could make those Canadian quarters in my pocket worth something.
Don't even think about it. The Royal Bank suggested it in the late 1990s. Currency is a major icon of national sovereignty. The NAFTA has not resulted in economic union like the EU, we still have major disputes from protectionism. Canada has solved it's federal budgetary deficit, the US hasn't. The US federal government is no where near doing things the Canadian way. Furthermore, the US does not respect Canada enough to abandon the US dollar in favour of a new continental currency. Your suggestions are an illustration; you only listed US historical figures. You did not mention John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier, William Lyon Mackenzie King, or Robert Borden. They're former Prime Ministers, on the $10, $5, $50, and $100 bills respectively. John A. Macdonald was Canada's first, that's why I list him first.
The US has to get it's own house in order.

Federal budget deficit has little to do with it, that is a fiscal matter, not a monetary one.

Those were only for the dollars printed in the US, Canada would have its own symbols of course. All we'd have to do to have a single currency is lock the exchange rate for US to Canadian dollars at 1:1, and also make the Canadian dollar legal tender in the United States, and make the US dollar legal tender in Canada. The two notes don't have to have identical portrates on them, but it would help if the US dollar and the canadian dollar were the same physical size and came in the same denominations. The way it would work is that instead of exchanging Canadian dollars for US dollars when you cross the border, you simply bring you canadian dollars into the US and you spend them just as you would US dollars anywhere in the US. You could even deposit them in a bank. Since the US and Canada dollar would be equal stores would use them interchangably. A typical cashregister might contain US and Canada currency notes intermingled, the change drawer would contain US and Canada quarters intermingled, US and Canada dimes intermingled, and US and canada nickles and pennies intermingled. Its a simpilar concept to the US State quarters, in that each state quarter has a different design on the back but no matter what they are still worth 25 cents.

What would happen is that after you've spend your Canadian currency in the US, the store owner would take that currency and deposit it in the store bank account and have that amount credited to the store's business account. The US bank would then exchange Canadian currency notes for US currency notes with Canadian banks, that way every time you withdrew funds in the US it would come out as US currency, if you withdrew it from a Canadian branch of the same bank, it would come out as Canadian currency. You could keep you symbols, its just that a 1:1 exchange rate would be locked in.

RobertDyck · 2006-11-08 10:51:15

The Canadian government attempted to use tax dollars to prop-up the value of the dollar, keep it as close to 1:1 as possible. It didn't work. It was expensive and the dollar slowly slipped anyway. The plummet in value occurred when they stopped. Markets were accustomed to the Canadian government intervening, they counted on making money when the government popped-up its value. The dollar slowly recovered after they got used to the fact they're on their own. But most of the current increase in the Canadian dollar is due to the US dollar falling.

Exchange rates reflect trade imbalance. When a country imports more than they export, the value of the dollar changes to make it balance. As long as Canada’s trade is separate from the US, currency exchange rates must fluctuate as well.

One factor you probably aren't aware of: foreign exchange is done in Canada at every branch of every bank. We can already deposit US dollars into a Canadian bank account; exchange into Canadian dollars is done at the teller. When I lived in a suburb of Richmond, Virginia, I found they had to mail currency exchange transactions out of the state. Most banks in Miami, Florida, couldn't do it either. Some Canadian banks offer accounts in US dollars. In fact, stores in Canada accept US coins, treating them as 1:1 exchange for Canadian coins. You have to go to a bank to exchange US banknotes (bills). So here it's not an issue.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-08 12:15:45

In order for US and Canadian notes to be equivalent as teh same currency, both there supply would have to be governed by the same central bank, with the Fed Chairman appointed by both governments, the task of fighting inflation is the same on both sides of the border. Whats needed is that and a law that says both notes are equivalent to each other on a 1:1 basis. If you have $50 Canadian and $50 US, then what you have is $100, and their would be no currency fluxuations, stores would be required to to list their prices and accept payment in either US or canadian. Banks would be required to accept either currency as a deposit and not distinguis whether it came from Canada or the US. In other words a dollar is a dollar, but the circulation of both currency notes would be governed by the same central bank and the money supply would include both types of currency just as it also includes every type of state quarter minted in the US.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-11-10 05:41:55

The problem I see is how do you tell a civilian fleeing from a Hezbollah re-supply truck. If they have vehicles they should of left along time ago.

If the Israelis go to Christian neighbourhoods and destroy water drill equipment. What in gods name makes you think that cars driving away will escape? IAF attacked a press convoy even though they were told about it. They attacked and killed UN personnel even though they were warned 10 times. It would be by the grace of god if a lebanese civilian managed to escape unharmed.]
You know what the most f****d part of this is? Zionism is mainly supported by secular jews who use religon.

Here are orthodox jews protesting about Zionism not being judaism and a secular jew comes and gives them an earful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9 … ed&search=

Here orthodox jews are beaten up for protesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5qZu4yhOvE&NR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW20JGs9 … ed&search=
I forgot to add this image.
This rabbi got stabbed during the brutal attack.

And this boy escapes getting kicked by a adult guard.
So much for the "a safe haven for jews"

Israeli jets target German ship
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2006/10/28/Foreign/abomb.html

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-11 01:11:21

The problem I see is how do you tell a civilian fleeing from a Hezbollah re-supply truck. If they have vehicles they should of left along time ago.

If the Israelis go to Christian neighbourhoods and destroy water drill equipment. What in gods name makes you think that cars driving away will escape? IAF attacked a press convoy even though they were told about it. They attacked and killed UN personnel even though they were warned 10 times. It would be by the grace of god if a lebanese civilian managed to escape unharmed.]
You know what the most f****d part of this is? Zionism is mainly supported by secular jews who use religon.

Here are orthodox jews protesting about Zionism not being judaism and a secular jew comes and gives them an earful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9 … ed&search=

Here orthodox jews are beaten up for protesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5qZu4yhOvE&NR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW20JGs9 … ed&search=
I forgot to add this image.
This rabbi got stabbed during the brutal attack.

And this boy escapes getting kicked by a adult guard.
So much for the "a safe haven for jews"
Israeli jets target German ship
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2006/10/28/Foreign/abomb.html

This is called a cherry picking exercise. You can find as much muck about the Jews if you look hard enough, and people do make mistakes, but it does not invalidate what I wa saying. I look at the big picture and the big picture says that the violence must stop if there is to be peace. It has become increasingly apparent to me that its the violence of the Palestinians that are keeping the conflict going, the Israeli government has shown a willingness to give up some territory, so I give them credit for that, but when they are attacked, they have a right to defend themselves. The existance of Israel is not at issue, what is at issue is whether their is going to be peace or war, and the choice is really up to the Palestinians, since they are the ones who keep it going. All those resources their Arab friends spend to keep the fighting going against the Jews could probably be spent more productively improving the lives of the Palestinians, but the Arabs and the Palestinians want to take every square inch of land away from Israel, and I don't see how every square inch of land is necessarily going to improve their lives, even assuming they are eventually successful in their aims of destroying Israel, its going to cost them alot in lives and resources to aquire every inch of that land.

The Arabs have most of their land minus Israel. The Arabs have all of North Africa and most of the Arabian penisula, there is plenty of room for the displace arabs to make a new life for themselves, instead of throwing their lives away trying to get every inch of Israel, whose intrinsic value is not in the land or in its oil, but in its people, kill the people and you just have the land, and that land is not worth more that all the land surrounding it. Israel exists, just accept that it does, I think there is little danger of the Jews displacing any more arabs or of taking over the whole of North Africa and pushing the Arabs aside, there just aren't enough Jews to do all that, so I don't know what the Egyptions, or the Iranians are so worried about. The Jews are only interested in keeping Israel as their homeland and no place else. If the Arabs can learn to accept history, and quit trying to undo a state that is 60 years old with a couple of generations of native born Israelis, then their can be peace and both sides can benefit. The Arabs should stop beating the War drum, and some liberals should stop beating it too in the name of "pacifism".

RobertDyck · 2006-11-11 10:17:43

A few years ago there was an incident in the Gaza Strip. A group of three Israeli solders entered and Palestinian civilians said they murdered a Palestinian civilian. Civilians apprehended the soldiers and were going to lynch them. Palestinian police intervened; one soldier was already dead, they placed the other two Israeli soldiers in jail. But they didn't arrange for a trial, instead the soldiers called Israeli military and asked them to come pick-up their soldiers. The mob stormed their own police station and lynched the soldiers. After it was all over, the body of a dead Palestinian was found; they Israelis really were a hit squad. The Israeli military responded with attack helicopters, firing rockets into a crowd on the street. Now seriously, what's the difference between a truck bomb and firing rockets into a crowd? The only difference is cost of the vehicle and weapons. Israel proved they are as much terrorists as the Palestinians. What's especially important, it started when Israeli soldiers did murder a Palestinian. Israel drew first blood.

Reference: Mob murder, missile attacks shatter hopes of Mideast peace

There are many incidents where Palestinians have been guilty of starting conflicts. This is why I say they're the same. Your comment, Tom, makes another fundamental mistake. This isn't about "Arab" vs. Israeli, it's Palestinian vs. Israeli. Israel has taken all the land of Palestine, they're country was destroyed with the stroke of a pen by some politicians after World War 2. When Israel was created, Palestine ceased to exist. Israel mounted terrorist attacks prior to WW2 when Britain occupied Israel. Their terrorist activity is seen by Palestinians as an example of how to create a country. Israel was created out of terrorism, Palestine is following their lead. Israel keeps claiming to be the righteous state while Palestinians are evil terrorists. However, Israel continues attacks against Palestinian civilians, attacks with tanks and helicopters and full military equipment. Israeli attacks are no less "terrorist" than Palestinian attacks.

It isn't enough to give "some" land. Any land held by Lebanon or Syria or Egypt or other "Arab" countries doesn't matter, doesn't count. Palestinians require their land back. Palestine is their country. The Oslo Accord granted all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel must honour its commitment and hand over all of it. Every time an Israeli unit enters a Palestinian town in the West Bank, tells home owners they have to get out because their house is ceased, their home will be given to an Israeli family, you can expect Palestinian retaliation. Yes, that is exactly what's going on. How would you feel if soldiers with assault rifles and tanks rolled into your yard and told you this house is no longer yours, get out? Would you ever rest, would you ever forgive, would you settle for anything less than returning your home? That is what's going on.

Palestinian politicians have been unreasonable as well. They demanded Jerusalem. That's never going to happen.

If you look at the map and history, Jerusalem has been controlled by Israeli, Arab, or Christian forces at various times since the fall of the Roman empire. However, maps of the region from 1000 BC (before Rome, Alexander the Great, Persia, Babylon, or Assyria) shows Philistia exactly where the Gaza Strip is now. Even the town of Gaza was already there. There was a UN partition plan in 1947; Palestine had more land than Gaza and the West Bank, and Jerusalem was to be a UN administered neutral city. Didn't happen. Granting the entirety of the Gaza and the West Bank has to be considered minimum, and Palestinians have to completely give up Jerusalem. Without that there will be no peace.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-11-11 12:56:02

From an Israeli source

German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said in Beirut there will no more incidents in which Israeli Air Force planes shoot at its helicopters and ships patrolling as part of the United Nations Interim Force (UNIFIL).
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=114823
Israeli planes allegedly fired over German helicopters and a ship two weeks ago after the helicopters took off without coordinating with the IDF.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-11-12 02:45:27

Israel's Lebanon flights almost drew fire, France says
France demanded Thursday that Israel stop staging mock raids over Lebanon after French peacekeepers came within seconds of shooting down Israeli warplanes.

US demands Israeli Air Force stop flights into Lebanese airspace
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1103/dailyUpdate.html

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-12 10:05:37

A few years ago there was an incident in the Gaza Strip. A group of three Israeli solders entered and Palestinian civilians said they murdered a Palestinian civilian. Civilians apprehended the soldiers and were going to lynch them. Palestinian police intervened; one soldier was already dead, they placed the other two Israeli soldiers in jail. But they didn't arrange for a trial, instead the soldiers called Israeli military and asked them to come pick-up their soldiers. The mob stormed their own police station and lynched the soldiers. After it was all over, the body of a dead Palestinian was found; they Israelis really were a hit squad. The Israeli military responded with attack helicopters, firing rockets into a crowd on the street. Now seriously, what's the difference between a truck bomb and firing rockets into a crowd? The only difference is cost of the vehicle and weapons. Israel proved they are as much terrorists as the Palestinians. What's especially important, it started when Israeli soldiers did murder a Palestinian. Israel drew first blood.
Reference: Mob murder, missile attacks shatter hopes of Mideast peace

That was in October 12, 2000, for christ sake, during the Clinton Adminstration's final year, it was also before the Israelis gave up the Gaza strip. The fact is to find incidents committed by Israeli soldiers, you need a "magnifying glass", you need to zoom in on the IDF down to the level of individual soldiers or back in time to when Israeli policy was different to find the "warts" and to make your equivalency argument. Palestinians have ired rockets into Israel every day since they began hostilities this summer, and they also voted in an organization dedicated to wipe out Israel, never forget that.

There are many incidents where Palestinians have been guilty of starting conflicts. This is why I say they're the same. Your comment, Tom, makes another fundamental mistake. This isn't about "Arab" vs. Israeli, it's Palestinian vs. Israeli.

Yeah it helps prevent me from accusing all the Arabs from supporting terrorists with their votes, if we confine it only to the Arabs living in Palestine, the other Arabs have a chance to disassociate themselves from their "evil cousins" who voted in these awful terrorists into their government. Everyone knows that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, that fact couldn't have escaped the Palestinians who voted them in.

Israel has taken all the land of Palestine, they're country was destroyed with the stroke of a pen by some politicians after World War 2.
They didn't have a country, Palestine was the name of an area administered by the British. "Palestinians" were simply people who lived in the area, just like the term "North Americans" refers to people living on the continent of North America. A Palestinian national identity did not develop until there was a large influx of Jews from Europe, fleeing the Holocaust, and afterwards getting away from the sites of their families demise. Palestinians didn't want Jews in their neighborhoods so they developed a "national identity" in reaction to the Jews. Palestinians still speak Arabic, they haven't developed a language called Palestinian yet. The Salient fact was that Palestine was part of the Transjordan region and part of the British Empire. Alot of the successor states in the middle east were the result of arbitrary subdivisions of the British Empire, since some of the British subjects were also Jewish, it seems fairly logical that the Jews too should get a piece of the Former British Empire, and that it shouldn't all be reserved exclusively for Muslim Arabs only.
When Israel was created, Palestine ceased to exist.

Palestine the way the Arabs define it, never existed as a country, their was never a Palestine Administered Government, it was ruled by the British. The British appointed people to run the Palestinian region, there was no single nationality associated with it. The only reason the Arabs objected to setting aside territory for the Jews is that, they were not Muslim, and they felt the region should be an exclusively Arab Muslim one for obviously selfish regions. The original partition was roughly 50% Jewish and 50% Muslim, this was the most territory ever occupied by Muslims after World War II. The West Bank went to Jordan and the Gaza Strip when to Egypt. The Arabs weren't satisfied with this, they wanted the whole thing and they invaded Israel to drive the Jews into the sea. If you look at the map of the 1948 partition, you see that it does not comprise all the territories of Modern Israel. The surrounding Arab countries invaded and in reaction the Israelis drove them out. Those Arab countries weren't interested in establishing an Arab state of Palestine; they were interested in expanding their borders, and in getting rid of the Jews.

Israel mounted terrorist attacks prior to WW2 when Britain occupied Israel. Their terrorist activity is seen by Palestinians as an example of how to create a country. Israel was created out of terrorism, Palestine is following their lead. Israel keeps claiming to be the righteous state while Palestinians are evil terrorists. However, Israel continues attacks against Palestinian civilians, attacks with tanks and helicopters and full military equipment. Israeli attacks are no less "terrorist" than Palestinian attacks.

The reason why Jews came to Israel in such great numbers had to do with a person named Adolf Hitler, he is the one responsible for first driving the Jews out of Germany when they could still leave. Those Jews had to live somewhere, one place they tried to get to was the ancient land of Israel, and the British were trying to keep them out and send them back to Germany, so as to keep their Arab subjects happy. For the Jews this was a life or death situation, being sent back to Germany meant certain death. The Jews figured that it was their own fight and nobody in Europe was going to fight for them, so they had to take matters in their own hands.

It isn't enough to give "some" land. Any land held by Lebanon or Syria or Egypt or other "Arab" countries doesn't matter, doesn't count. Palestinians require their land back. Palestine is their country.

There was never a Muslim Palestine, prior to Israel pulling its troops out of Gaza and parts of the West Bank, prior to that, the so called Palestine territory was always part of another country or it was the ancient state of Israel, a Jewish Kingdom. Palestine was always a mixture of people, the demand that it be exclusively a Muslim state is only a recent one. Notice how Christian Arabs a fleeing the regions the Palestinians control, the Muslims there have made them feel distinctly unwelcome. The whole idea of a Palestinian State is based on Islamic Supremacy, and that Islam is the only legitimate religion, and that all other religions either have second class status or not be allowed to exist.

The Oslo Accord granted all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel must honour its commitment and hand over all of it.

In return for a peace that did not materialize. The region is not ruled from Oslo in anycase. Its amazing how many Europeans are rooting for Islamic Supremacy in the Middle East, they even think Christians don't have a legitimate place there, but both Christianity and Judaism have their roots their, and the Muslims want to deny a presence for all religions except their own. The percentage of territory in the Middle East controlled by Jews is minuted compared to that controlled by Muslims. The fact that most of the Middle East is occupied by Muslims would seem to argue that a little something ought to be set aside for the Jews and Chrisitians too. Jews and Christians only exist at the sufference of the Arab authorities, where the law forbids them from prostelitizing or spreading their religion amongst the Arabs. Muslims that convert of Christianity are often executed, so Israel is a place where the other two religions that have roots in the region are allowed to prosper unmolested by Islamic authority or law.

Every time an Israeli unit enters a Palestinian town in the West Bank, tells home owners they have to get out because their house is ceased, their home will be given to an Israeli family, you can expect Palestinian retaliation. Yes, that is exactly what's going on. How would you feel if soldiers with assault rifles and tanks rolled into your yard and told you this house is no longer yours, get out? Would you ever rest, would you ever forgive, would you settle for anything less than returning your home? That is what's going on.

You are cherry picking again with your "magifying glass". Nobody is perfect or a saint. If you look at any nation with a "magnifying glass" you are bound to find imperfactions and flaws in that country, and so far your "magnifying glass" is only focused on Israel.

Palestinian politicians have been unreasonable as well. They demanded Jerusalem. That's never going to happen.
If you look at the map and history, Jerusalem has been controlled by Israeli, Arab, or Christian forces at various times since the fall of the Roman empire. However, maps of the region from 1000 BC (before Rome, Alexander the Great, Persia, Babylon, or Assyria) shows Philistia exactly where the Gaza Strip is now. Even the town of Gaza was already there. There was a UN partition plan in 1947; Palestine had more land than Gaza and the West Bank, and Jerusalem was to be a UN administered neutral city. Didn't happen. Granting the entirety of the Gaza and the West Bank has to be considered minimum, and Palestinians have to completely give up Jerusalem. Without that there will be no peace.

Judaism is the progenitor of both Christianity and Islam. It appears Islam has no respect for its elders, apparently they expected Mohamad to sweep all prior believes aside, and to a lesser extent the Christians of Europe thought all Jews should have converted to Christianity and that their should be no Jews left. I wonder how much of the Anti-Israeli bias in Europe is still motivated by that, do they not realize that had it not been for Judaism, their would be no Chritians or Muslims? Since Muslims want to establish a Jewish God that they call Allah, and of whom Mohammad is a prophet of, how can they also exclude the Jews? If Judaism is a false religion then Mohammad is a prophet of a false Jewish God, and Jesus's divinity falls into question if christians also question the legitimacy of Judaism.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-12 10:24:44

Israel's Lebanon flights almost drew fire, France says
France demanded Thursday that Israel stop staging mock raids over Lebanon after French peacekeepers came within seconds of shooting down Israeli warplanes.
US demands Israeli Air Force stop flights into Lebanese airspace
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1103/dailyUpdate.html

Why is Israel doing this? To stop Hezbollah from resupplying its troops thats why and UNIFIL is not stopping the rearmament of the Hezbollah. the IDF is primarily interested in preventing Hezbollah from firing more missiles into Israel and UNFIL has no mandate to stop Hezbollah from rearming and has not prevented Hezbollah from rearming. Since the Lebanese have broken their word many times, and have not stopped Hezbollah nor authorized the UN to stop Hezbollah, what do you expect the IDF to do? Their job is to protect the Israeli people, and UNIFIL's presence only serves to prevent them from doing so. UNIFIL is not protecting any Jews by being their, and if Jews aren't protected then Muslims are either. Israel is eventually going to act against Hezbollah again to protect its own citizens, and if Hezbollah is in southern Lebanon, then the Lebanese who live their are undoubtably going to suffer again. Those buildings that Hezbollah are helping to reconstruct are only going to get knocked down again by Israeli planes and bombs. The UN is not guaranteeing Israeli security, the French and the Germans are doing nothing except possibly adding some of their own soldiers to the list of future casualities in that future war they are not authorized to prevent, they just sit their as observers to watch the Hezbollah rearm and do nothing about it. The UN troops are simply passing their time down their, rotating in and out of the region until the unlucky soldiers get stationed their when Hezbollah decides to attack Israel once more and Israel responds. It is a game of Russian Roulett for those UN soldiers, the only thing they will accomplish is some of their own deaths when they get caught in the crossfire, believe me!

DonPanic · 2006-11-12 11:28:08

Why is Israel doing this? To stop Hezbollah from resupplying its troops thats why and UNIFIL is not stopping the rearmament of the Hezbollah.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/ … 35-ap.html

RobertDyck · 2006-11-12 12:54:38

That was in October 12, 2000, for christ sake, during the Clinton Adminstration's final year, it was also before the Israelis gave up the Gaza strip.

The Oslo Accord was during the Clinton administration. Signed August 20, 1993.

Everyone knows that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, that fact couldn't have escaped the Palestinians who voted them in.

Uhh, voting in Hamas was a stupid thing to do. I don't know what to say about that.

Palestine the way the Arabs define it, never existed as a country

You could also claim Israel never existed. Convenient.

The reason why Jews came to Israel in such great numbers had to do with a person named Adolf Hitler

Throughout European history, kings have asked Jews to come in and fix their economy whenever the economy did poorly. Then once the economy was restored, persecute them, drive them out. It isn't anything new, it happened more times than history can record since the fall of the Roman empire. Hitler just followed a millennia old solution: blame the Jews. The Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to pay war reparations for World War 1, despite the fact they were dragged in by their alliance with Austria. That destroyed the German economy. German people were suffering; when citizens are militant about the economy and you can't use the Jews to straighten it out, blame the Jews. They found multiple places to go in the past, they could have again. It's far more complicated than you paint. I'm not saying it was wrong to create Israel, but Palestine has existed as long as Israel, they have as much right to their land as Israelis.

You never did address the fact that Israelis and Palestinians are two equal peoples with equal claim to their respective land. There are some territorial disputes based on land that has changed hands over more than 3,000 years, but the Gaza has always been Palestine. From Wikipedia: Palestine (from Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשת Pleshet, פלשתינה Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين Filastīn, Falastīn)

In return for a peace that did not materialize. The region is not ruled from Oslo in anycase.

The treaty was signed by the Prime Minister of Israel and leader of Palestinians in Oslo, Norway, a neutral country. As for peace, it was supposed to mean Israel handed over territory, no longer had sovereignty or any claim there. They didn't honour their agreement either. Most importantly, what makes you think anyone can be "supreme"? If anyone attempts to dominate they are a fascist dictator who must be struck down. America has made a big noise about freedom, why don't you understand that other countries want freedom as well.

Your last paragraph had to do with religion. Are you justifying persecuting Palestinians and taking their land based on religious justifications? Are you saying the Middle East conflict is a holy war, a crusade? That can only escalate and violates the principle of religious freedom. Both Canada and the U.S. have religious freedom, you're violating the principles of your own country.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-13 08:35:18

Listen carefully to what I say. I said, the Jews and Christians have an equal right to live in the middle east. The Israelis are not pushing them all out of the Middle East, they don't have the numbers to do that anyway. The Jews need the land of Israel because the Arab will not let them live in peace within their own country, they will persecute them, and at most make them live as second class citizens. In Israel, they are not second class citizens, that is why they need that state. As for Arabs not living their, the Israelis also have the right to live in peace, and with Arabs blowing themselves up and attacking their children it is not possible to allow Arabs to live in Israel and also maintain security at the same time. Israel is of course the Jewish homeland, it is also where Christanity was born, but Islam was born in Mecca. Jerusalem was only the site where Muhammad supposedly ascended into heaven on a fabled winged horse, basically it was an equine launch pad. The Arabs got Mecca, the place Muhammad was born and they got Bethleham, the place Jesus was born, I don't see why they should also have Jerusalem and the homeland of the Jews as well, anyway they got all that oil and the Jews got none of it. I think its a fair bargain that the Jews get to keep Israel, it is not alot of land, and their land offers very little that would make the Arabs lives any better.

You could also claim Israel never existed. Convenient.

No you couldn't. Arab Palestine never existed as an independent country, it was always part of one Empire or another. Israel was carved out of the British Empire along with the other Arab states. The Arab states resented the fact that Israel was not Muslim and they coveted the land besides, and so they attacked Israel when the British pulled out. Arab hostility towards Israel is Just a reflection of their hostility toward other religions, and American Liberals pandering to Arab bigotry is a disgrace.
Israel has given the Palestinians some land and have gotten no peace, it therefore has no incentive to give them any more, and its not just going to sit their and let the Palestinians fire missiles into their territory, and so it has moved into Gaza. I don't see why you think Israel should honor its end of the aggreement when all it has gotten was more violence from the other side. The Germans did not start withdrawing from France During World War I until they had a cease fire. Since the Palestinians won't give Israel a Ceasefire, then I don't see why they should withdraw. And while you are critcising the Jews you are nice and comfortable sitting in your armchair not under a barrage of missiles peppering your home town, so I imagine you can live nice and confortable with yourself knowing that Jews are being killed. Before Israel gives up any land, it needs assurances that the Palestinians will halt their violence, as it can only give up that land once. Gaza was a test case which the Palestinians failed. The Israeli public has no appitite to give up more, abd heck the Arabs got most of the land in the Middle East anyway, and Palestinians make up the majority of people in Jordan, its not that they don't have a homeland already. Why should they take land out of a small country such as Israel? Israel certainly can not afford to give them much. The price of land is very dear in the Middle East, and the Israelis certainly didn't get their money's worth for giving up Gaza. And also a constant fact that always escapes liberals is that the Palestinians support terrorism, and any state they create will be a terrorist state. I also don't like the fact that different standards are applied to the US, Israel, and the Palestinians. Nobody makes any bones about the fact that the Palestinians are deliberately targeting civilians with their missiles, yet have one errant missile from the Americans or even more especially the Israelis and the UN howls. If Ambassador Bolton is not voted on and approved as UN ambassador for the UN, I think the United States should send no Ambassadors to the UN, especially if the Democratic Congress want to force a "Surrendercrat" on the Bush Administration. The UN is biased, bigoted and antisemetic, and the sooner that disgrace leaves New York the better.

DonPanic · 2006-11-13 09:20:50

And also a constant fact that always escapes liberals is that the Palestinians support terrorism, and any state they create will be a terrorist state.

It's a constant from you that you support any kind of a solution which fuels terrorism

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-13 13:02:36

And also a constant fact that always escapes liberals is that the Palestinians support terrorism, and any state they create will be a terrorist state.
It's a constant from you that you support any kind of a solution which fuels terrorism

You fuel terrorism when you reward it and give it oxygen to breath. The Palestinians will say, "Hey we got some land when we killed some Jews. Lets kill some more Jews and maybe we'll get some more land."

My solution is to punish terrorism. A society that embraces terrorism should be punished. Sometimes you just don't have the resources to punish every individual terrorist, you have to ask a question as to whether the society as a whole supports terrorism. If support for terrorism is so widespread that there is too many people in it that are guilty of supporting it, you have no choice but to resort to collective punishment or let that society win, it is unfortunate that some innocent might get caught in the collective punishment, but unavoidable when your fighting a war on terrorism. Hopefully once the society realizes it only gets hardship for its support of terrorism, it will realize that such a tactic is counter productive and detrimental to their society. I know your going to say that brings them down to their level. War tends to do that to some degree, because tactics like that tend to bring advantages to the one that uses it. Terrorism works best when one side uses it and counts on the otherside to have some self-restraint. Seems to me that the Israelis, don't have to sink quite to the Palestinian level of no-holds barred, attack their children terrorism. Unlike the Palestinians, the Israelis can inflict terror on the Palestinian population as it achieves its objectives, it can bomb specifically the terrorists where they hide, and if Palestinians stick close to them and use themselves as human shields that is their tragedy, the thing for the Israelis to do is not to let that stop them from bombing the terrorists. Palestinians usually don't even try to hit anything military, they just target the civilians.
The Israelis can make the Palestinian's lives very miserable, and it has the better military equipment to destroy the enemy's ability to fight. The Israelis simply have to turn a deaf ear to the cries of the innocent and those pretending to be innocent. I think the Palestinians know what the Israelis are after when they go after terrorist camps and suicide bomb factories. Any Palestinian that lives near them should know better, but they do so purposely hoping to deter the Israelis from striking at these targets and it works so long as the Israelis care more about civilian casualities than the Palestinians do. If the Israelis stop caring and worry only about themselves, life is going to be Hell for the Palestinians until the stop. The Palestinians are pretty miserable, the path towards achieving their objective of a homeland is the ceasing of terrorism, not its continuance. If their objective is to destroy Israel, they cannot succeed, they don't have the means, and the position of wiping Israel off the map only inclines the Israelis to do something similar to the Palestinians. I don't think the Israelis are willing to cease to exist in order to spare the Palestinians, so maybe the Palestinians ought to try ceasing their support for terrorism, and maybe liberals should stop rewarding it, and providing light at the end of the tunnel for terrorists. The more hopeless the terrorists' situation is, the sooner they will cease. Give them land for their efforts and it will only spur them on.

RobertDyck · 2006-11-14 01:45:14

I said, the Jews and Christians have an equal right to live in the middle east.

Palestinians have an equal right to live there too. In fact, Palestinians lived there since 1000 BC; that's a thousand years before Christ. Also listen to me, I said to not give Jerusalem to Palestine. I said honour the commitment to give them Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Here's the map of the state of Israel today, showing the Gaza Strip and West Bank:

Here's the approved barrier route as of May 2005:

Notice the cyan coloured sections where the barrier cuts into the West Bank. The green line denotes the border, the blue line shows where the barrier is built. Between is the area ceded to Palestine by the Oslo Accord but Israel reneged.

Also notice the Golan Heights and the UNDOF zone. That's land taken from Syria by military force. Historically Israel never had that before. Israel certainly has enough land.

And Israel circa 1000 BC, and 63 BC - 70 AD. Notice Philistia is larger than the Gaza Strip today, extending further north.

DonPanic · 2006-11-14 03:11:26

My solution is to punish terrorism. A society that embraces terrorism should be punished.

When Arafat and Israel were negociating peace, colonisation never stopped, I did condemn the palestinian "right to return" meaning that Israel would long-term be overflown by Arabs, but there couldn't be any trust from Palestinians as long as the official and wild settlements lasted.
Your solution, punish "terrorism" don't mean any thing, we aren't at "war on terror", this stupidity has shown its couterproductivity for three long years.

We're at war at terrorists, first thing to do is to avoid conditions which fuel terrorism, then identify and streak terrorists in their nests, turn a whole population into terrorits' supporter as well as weakening the moderate palestinian leaders are the worth thing to do, destroying palestinian Arafat side turned the population towards hamas.

So please, stop supporting the retaliations way, the one that leads to US and Israel international isolation.
That's enough ! Only improvements in the palestinian conditions of life can help peace, collective punishment is nazi type behavoiur, anyways. Germans had collective punishments by Bremen, Hamburg, Dresden massive bombings bound to kill and terrorize as many civilians as possible, that did rather fuel a sharp german resistance will rather than break the population support for the Nazis.
We aren't in a movie and you aren't Inspector Harry

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2006-11-05 12:16:28

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#152 2006-11-06 10:26:56

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#153 2006-11-06 19:32:41

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#154 2006-11-07 09:24:38

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#155 2006-11-07 11:29:20

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#156 2006-11-07 11:43:02

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#157 2006-11-07 13:05:15

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#158 2006-11-07 13:33:48

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#159 2006-11-08 02:13:09

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#160 2006-11-08 10:51:15

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#161 2006-11-08 12:15:45

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#162 2006-11-10 05:41:55

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#163 2006-11-11 01:11:21

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#164 2006-11-11 10:17:43

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#165 2006-11-11 12:56:02

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#166 2006-11-12 02:45:27

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#167 2006-11-12 10:05:37

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#168 2006-11-12 10:24:44

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#169 2006-11-12 11:28:08

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#170 2006-11-12 12:54:38

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#171 2006-11-13 08:35:18

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#172 2006-11-13 09:20:50

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#173 2006-11-13 13:02:36

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#174 2006-11-14 01:45:14

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#175 2006-11-14 03:11:26

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

Board footer